IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation--Each Court should be left to decide the percentage of increase, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Compensation--A Court would be free to arrive at its own conclusions as to the percentage of increase to be awarded depending upon the evidence on record and the circumstances obtaining.

1. This order shall dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 135 to 153, 513 and 777 of 2001, as they arise from the same acquisition proceedings.

2. These appeals have been filed, praying for enhancement of compensation, determined by the learned single Judge, vide his judgment dated 17-2-2000.

3. The State of Punjab issued a notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on 7-10-1985 for acquiring 101.54 acres of land, for the public purpose of constructing Satluj Yamuna Link canal, in the revenue estate of village Mehdudan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. This was followed by a notification, under Section 6 of the Act, dated 10-10-1985.

4. On 14-8-1986, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation to the claimants at the following rates :-

Chahi Rs. 71,990/-

Barani Rs. 50,000/-

Banjar/Gair Mumkin Rs. 35,000/-

5. Dissatisfied with the aforementioned compensation, the land owners preferred references praying for enhancement of the amount, awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The references were forwarded to the District Judge, Patiala. The appellants, as also the State, led evidence and after an appraisal thereof, the Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide award dated 17-1-1992, enhanced compensation to the following terms :-

1. Chahi Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre.

2. Barani Rs. 75,000/- per acre.

3. Banjar Rs. 55,000/- per acre.

6. The appellants were also held entitled to solatium and interest, as also the additional amount, as envisaged by the provisions of the Act.

7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned award, the State of Punjab filed appeals, for reduction of the amount of compensation, whereas the appellants filed cross objections/appeals for further enhancement of compensation on the basis of existing market rates.

8. The learned single Judge, vide the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeals, filed by the State of Punjab and accepted the appeals/cross objections, filed by the appellants, and enhanced the amount of compensation to the following rates :-

1. Chahi Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre.

2. Barani Rs. 1,00,806/- per acre.

3. Banjar Rs. 0,60,483.87 per acre.

9. The only point, argued by counsel for the appellant-land owners, is that while assessing the market value of the acquired land, the learned single Judge relied upon a judgment of this Court, Ex.A6 pertaining to land, situated in village Polwal, Tehsil Rajpura, acquired in the year 1982. As the land, subject matter of the present acquisition, was acquired in the year 1985 i.e. a gap of three years, the learned single Judge should have enhanced the compensation by 12% per annum over and above the amount, determined by Ex.A6 by applying the principle of 12% increase per annum, as laid down in Section 23 (1-A) of the Act.

10. Reliance, for the above proposition, is placed upon Inder Singh V/s. The State of Punjab through Secretary to Government, Punjab and another, Vol. XCIV (1988-2) 190, and State of Haryana V/s. Bhagwati Devi (died) through L.Rs. 2000 (2) LACC 305.

11. Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, contends that Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, that provides for an increase of 12% from the date of the notification, under Section 4 of the Act, to the date of pronouncement of the award or the taking of possession, whichever is earlier, is irrelevant for the present controversy. Though there is a time gap of three years between the acquisition, subject-matter of Ex.A6 and the present acquisition, this time difference alone cannot be cited as a circumstance to claim increase in the market value. The absence of any evidence on record to suggest increase in prices in the intervening period negates the appellants claim. It is further contended that the learned single Judge, while taking notice of the time gap between Ex.A6 and the present acquisition, awarded an amount in excess of the amount, awarded in Ex.A6 and, therefore, the present appeals be dismissed. It is contended that there cannot be any